Generally speaking, it is good to get regular check-ups from anything as simple as blood pressure or getting sick. The same goes for dental and eye check-ups.

Mmm well I cycle competitively so I have to take a detailed general visit once a year, checking if my heart and lugs are ok. Dental I agree. Eye not sure, why would I want a check-up if I see everything perfectly?

If I had the healthcare to provide for it, I'd be going to the family doctor at least 4 times a year, the dentist at least twice a year, and an eye doctor for at least once a year. I would go even more than that if there are any concerns.

Ahah, Ok...I´m one of those who prefers to go only when it´s really necessary. Why would you go to the family doctor 4 times a year if not ill?

In that situation, it'll be working like social security and medicare as it is (or was until the healthcare law made it possible for people to stay on a parent's coverage until ~26) in the states. The only difference is that instead of having everything only apply to old people, the young can get healthcare. We'd see the real benefits as we grow older, but we'll still see the benefits as we are now.

Most of the healthcare laws (and even social programs) and bills we have in place are mostly directed to the old, the children, the poor or people with disabilities (going in that order of the greatest to least.) Most of the younger people our age aren't really missing out on anything if we included it or not because one of the least insured group is our group, the 18-30 year old people.

Right, that´s correct.

I'd think a progressive tax as one person grows older (lower as one hits 18 and higher as once hits close to 65) would be appropriate in this situation.

Well, in spite of what I said before, I would not like that...one of the basis of an insurance is the principe of "solidarity" i.e. we pool the resources together so that everyone can pay less. Maybe it would be OK to have a very small rise, but let´s also consider that older people have a higher income (maybe up to 50 yo), so they generally pay more nevertheless.

Ahah, Ok...I´m one of those who prefers to go only when it´s really necessary. Why would you go to the family doctor 4 times a year if not ill?

Statistically speaking, it is better to catch something before it happens instead of when it happens. Things like high blood pressure, or even diabetes is hard to detect unless you have those specific equipment to detect them. It is better to find out that you have pre-hypertension or pre-diabetes before the onset of hypertension and diabetes were to occur. Often times, people are unaware they are at pre-hypertension or close to hypertension because the body doesn't give you much of a signal that you are putting too much sodium in your body. Although people generally think they may eat healthy, it is still a good idea to go to the family doctor to make sure that is the case. I don't think people would want to find out by getting either a stroke or being constantly thirsty to find that they have very high blood pressure or diabetes. But then again, the prevalence of the two in America is generally higher than that of other places.

So, long story short, to check for anything that I may be overlooking that the doctor catches. Seeing the doctor at least once a year is good, but seeing the doctor a few times a year is even better. Taking only a day off a year to see a doctor leaves a lot of room for something to get unnoticed. Spreading it to at least four means that you can at least see the doctor every 3 months.

As for the eye doctor, I can understand perfectly. But for people like me, I need to check the eye doctor at least once every year or two years.

I realise this. They are not comparable situations. They simply do not reflect each other in their natures. The argument is fine; the example is not.
False equivalency.
Demonstratably false, notably in healthcare.

Wrong.

public health care systems are demonstratably more efficient.

Not true. Efficiency depends on many factors not related to whether it's publicly or privately owned. Public ownership works better primarily in cases where the duplication of expensive infrastructure is worse than the waste inherent in public run systems.

The moral point is subjective,

Values are subjective, but principles of fairness are not. They provides a shared framework for consensus.

however the cost of care is the same whether or not someone pays.

The cost is not fixed. It depends on market forces. For example, we increased the supply of health care providers, costs will go down and more people will be able to benefit without going bankrupt.

The requirement to pay into is no less moral than not helping people who need aid, especially when the net utilitarian value is positive in providing aid.

The bolded part is another unsubstantiated assertion.

The problem is not with mandatory subscription. It has more to do with forcing people to buy into a grossly expensive system without addressing the wasteful practices.

For the record, I think the current US system is so bad that almost anything else would be an improvement. If I was American, I would support Obamacare as a first step towards change.

It doesn't matter whether it's public or private. If demand increases, the suppliers will be able to raise prices without incurring a reduction in sales volume.

Name a few where prices have increased? T.V, Computers, Cellphones, Cars, and even newspapers used to be a luxury thing. Yet, with increased demand, the prices for these commodities have decreased for average consumers to partake in.

The only exception that I can think of is if it is a limited commodity like oil, but the fact that the U.S. is very dependent on oil is part of the problem. The demand that we have for oil and energy far exceeds the supply side.

In this healthcare case, we have supply that far exceeds demand for healthcare at the expense of the many that do not partake in healthcare.

If supply far exceeds demand, than companies are willing to keep the insurance at a higher cost to conserve money in case an accident were to occur.

Originally Posted by Not_Me

The idea behind insurance is that only a small percentage of the people who paid into it will actually draw from it. Those who are unfortunate enough to need it, are being subsidized by the rest. But as the population ages, too many people will be drawing from it. This will place excessive financial burden on the contributors.

Social Security, if I'd recall correctly, were paid by those who are now just reaching their old age. HOWEVER, the fact that they have allowed the government to take that money to put it in other uses (like maybe tax-cuts or military expenditure) is a problem. THAT, is what I don't want coming from this new idea. For it to be malleable and to stay malleable to what social security used to be, the government nor corporations are allowed to touch this fund.

Name a few where prices have increased? T.V, Computers, Cellphones, Cars, and even newspapers used to be a luxury thing. Yet, with increased demand, the prices for these commodities have decreased for average consumers to partake in.

In all you examples, there were no barrier to prevent the supply to rise to meet demand. In health care, there are strong impediments, many of which are regulatory. Not every qualified candidate who wishes to become a health care provider is allowed to do so.

In this healthcare case, we have supply that far exceeds demand for healthcare at the expense of the many that do not partake in healthcare.

If supply far exceeds demand, than companies are willing to keep the insurance at a higher cost to conserve money in case an accident were to occur.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. What you wrote looks so blatantly incorrect that I don't think you mean to say what you did.

Social Security, if I'd recall correctly, were paid by those who are now just reaching their old age. HOWEVER, the fact that they have allowed the government to take that money to put it in other uses (like maybe tax-cuts or military expenditure) is a problem. THAT, is what I don't want coming from this new idea. For it to be malleable and to stay malleable to what social security used to be, the government nor corporations are allowed to touch this fund.

That is incorrect. Social security is paid by everyone who work. Seniors take out far more than they put in. In the past, it didn't matter because there were many more workers than seniors. That is no longer the case.

In all you examples, there were no barrier to prevent the supply to rise to meet demand. In health care, there are strong impediments, many of which are regulatory. Not every qualified candidate who wishes to become a health care provider is allowed to do so.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. What you wrote looks so blatantly incorrect that I don't think you mean to say what you did.

I'll try. What I mean is, at this point, there is a limited supply of consumers and a limited amount of profits that can be made.

The case I am getting at is that healthcare providers will get more consumers while consumers will get healthcare for a decrease cost.<--- I'm assuming, to be part of the program, healthcare providers must be willing to lower costs. Healthcare providers may be willing to increase supply as demand occurs because there is less of a risk involved.

Again, it goes back to the whole lottery system, the cost for any accident is cheaper for everyone to pay in rather than have only a certain amount of the population paying in.

Many taxes that we pay aren't so noticeable by the "average" consumer. I don't even know a lot of what kind of taxes I do and do not pay (as some aren't readily noticeable.) As something can be obscure as something as you guys helping to pay for roads, bridges, and levees in my city.

Originally Posted by Not_Me

That is incorrect. Social security is paid by everyone who work. Seniors take out far more than they put in. In the past, it didn't matter because there were many more workers than seniors. That is no longer the case.

Still does not detract the case that those seniors, or ready-to-be seniors, paid for it for most of their lifetimes.

The case I am getting at is that healthcare providers will get more consumers while consumers will get healthcare for a decrease cost.<--- I'm assuming, to be part of the program, healthcare providers must be willing to lower costs. Healthcare providers may be willing to increase supply as demand occurs because there is less of a risk involved.

That's not how supply and demand works. You are talking about a union controlled health care system. That would lead to astronomical costs.

Again, it goes back to the whole lottery system, the cost for any accident is cheaper for everyone to pay in rather than have only a certain amount of the population paying in.

It's not the same. Almost no one win lotteries. Almost everyone need health care.

Many taxes that we pay aren't so noticeable by the "average" consumer. I don't even know a lot of what kind of taxes I do and do not pay (as some aren't readily noticeable.) As something can be obscure as something as you guys helping to pay for roads, bridges, and levees in my city.

That's why there is so much government waste. The bureaucrats are not spending their own money. They don't care.

Still does not detract the case that those seniors, or ready-to-be seniors, paid for it for most of their lifetimes.

Paid for? In their retirement years, they take out several times the amount that they contributed over their career.

That's not how supply and demand works. You are talking about a union controlled health care system. That would lead to astronomical costs.

It's not the same. Almost no one win lotteries. Almost everyone need health care.

My mistake from the example I used, lotteries, wrong word. I meant pooling.

The majority of the spending is still Social Security, Medicare, and Military, as far as I can tell, most other things are just a blimp in the sand.

Like I said, we either do away with Social Security and Medicare, which almost no one wants, or change the system so that it is solvent, but still make people pay up. What is your take? Because vouchers will not solve anything, nor will increasing taxes.

As far as I can tell, in order for me to support Social Security and Medicare, I'll have to benefit from it. Which means I'd need to be allowed to have healthcare benefits as someone 65+ and children.

Like I said, we either do away with Social Security and Medicare, which almost no one wants, or change the system so that it is solvent, but still make people pay up. What is your take? Because vouchers will not solve anything, nor will increasing taxes.

I think we need to change the criteria for allowing people to enter into the health care profession. The current system admits only the highest academic achievers. Those admitted are required to make sacrifices for years. These arbitrary barriers keep the supply of professionals scarce. There is no proof that these criteria creates the best practitioners. If more were trained, competition would reduce costs.

I think we need to change the criteria for allowing people to enter into the health care profession. The current system admits only the highest academic achievers. Those admitted are required to make sacrifices for years. These arbitrary barriers keep the supply of professionals scarce. There is no proof that these criteria creates the best practitioners. If more were trained, competition would reduce costs.

I think those rules are there for our protection. I honestly don't think the system is arbitrary - it is like a background check. I would want a professional that learn a lot of the procedures before becoming a professional. I mean, I wouldn't want a surgeon who has gotten his degree because they made the system any more laxed. My life is in their hands, and I'd expect them to have great knowledge in what they do.

In comparison, I would compare it to making the procedure if checking the procedure for medicine. Those who want to funnel their pill without any restrictions push their product onto the supplements group, those that are considered medicine have gone through rigorous tests to prove that they are intended for their uses. I'd much rather prefer the second group over the first.

Reduction of cost by making it more laxed is not the way to go, especially when it comes to a healthcare professional.